13 minutes ago, Procus said:

BS.  There are some very shady abortionists out there.  I commend the years of education and hard work you and your wife underwent.  But your eyes are closed if you refuse to see the underbelly of this aspect of the "practice" of medicine. 

As I said before, your medical degree doesn't confer extra qualifications on you to opine on this issue.

Opinions, no. Facts about how the actual process works and the consequences of not doing it given a large amount of experience, absolutely.  Infant euthanasia isn't legal nor would it be tolerated by any medical board. Massive difference between palliation of a non viable child and euthanizing a healthy one, and come conflating the 2 is absolutely ridiculous. 

9 minutes ago, Procus said:

This guy seriously thinks he's superior to the rest of us mere mortals because we're not doctors.  Very full of himself - he has to brag about his degree and specialty and that of his wife in a football forum.

Are you the same guy who said, to paraphrase "you don't know who I am!" just a week or two ago? Because I think you might be him.

2 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Are you the same guy who said, to paraphrase "you don't know who I am!" just a week or two ago? Because I think you might be him.

The secret's out.  DEagle7 is my alter ego.  We're the same person.

4 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Opinions, no. Facts about how the actual process works and the consequences of not doing it given a large amount of experience, absolutely.  Infant euthanasia isn't legal nor would it be tolerated by any medical board. Massive difference between palliation of a non viable child and euthanizing a healthy one, and come conflating the 2 is absolutely ridiculous. 

Give it time...

20 minutes ago, TEW said:

Doctors and patients don't make laws. Governments do. Legally, in this case, state governments. If some state governments want to then say it's a free for all, that's their legal right as morally reprehensible as it might be.

Doctors and patients should however, be able to make their own medical decisions without government interference, be it federal or state.

Just now, DEagle7 said:

Doctors and patients should however, be able to make their own medical decisions without government interference, be it federal or state.

So, baby about to come out of the womb, mom says kill it, doctor says OK, you think that should be legal?

8 minutes ago, TEW said:

Give it time...

We're there already.  When they're talking about after birth abortion, we've entered the Twilight Zone.

46 minutes ago, Procus said:

It was a horrible decision where, if the Supreme Court was unable to reverse itself, could stand today absent the 13th amendment.

That decision was one of the causes of the Civil War. You would think that would be a lesson to people but unfortunately it’s not.

10 minutes ago, Procus said:

The secret's out.  DEagle7 is my alter ego.  We're the same person.

Doubtful, you aren't bright enough to manage two message board accounts. You couldn't even comprehend a simple post.

4 minutes ago, Procus said:

We're there already.  When there talking about after birth abortion, we've entered the Twilight Zone.

They’re murdering babies?

5 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

Doctors and patients should however, be able to make their own medical decisions without government interference, be it federal or state.

Agree and disagree with this statement.  By and large this is a correct statement.  However, there has to be limitations.  Not all doctors are ethical.  We could circle back to the Kevorkian and euthanasia issue that was raging years back as an example.

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

They’re murdering babies?

No. One or two people on a message board made a dumb comment and so now its "they" to the retards. 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

Doubtful, you aren't bright enough to manage two message board accounts. 

I guess you weren't on the boards when this guy was banned.  The cat's out of the bag.  Should we bring him back now that the boards are under new management?

5 minutes ago, Dave Moss said:

They’re murdering babies?

Shady abortionists have been known to kill viable fetuses.  This is nothing new under the sun. 

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

Shady abortionists have been known to kill viable fetuses.  This is nothing new under the sun. 

Link?

1 minute ago, Dave Moss said:

Link?

You do realize there was a movie made about this guy, don't you?

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/local/gosnell-murder-deliberations-stretch-into-10th-day/2143888/

20 minutes ago, Procus said:

We're there already.  When they're talking about after birth abortion, we've entered the Twilight Zone.

Spartans did it, made them stronger didnt it?

(I dont support this but just saying)

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Kicking it back to the states, since there is no legal right to an abortion or anything about abortion anywhere in the constitution and the US constitution clearly states that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

 

I think there is a fundamental logic to this position, but in the case of longstanding, established medical practices, I believe courts have traditionally excepted them from state intervention under the right to privacy.

1 hour ago, TEW said:

Kicking it back to the states, since there is no legal right to an abortion or anything about abortion anywhere in the constitution and the US constitution clearly states that any power not explicitly granted to the federal government is reserved for the states.

I would have no issue with this, with one important caveat. No state should be able to pass a law punishing a resident from traveling to another state to get an abortion. You are subject to the laws of the state you are currently in. 
 

I am always in favor of reducing the power of the federal government. If NY and CA want to allow abortion until the second before birth - so be it. And if Texas wants to ban all abortion - so be it. 

Just now, EaglesRocker97 said:

I think there is a fundamental logic to this position, but in the case of longstanding, established medical practices, I believe courts have traditionally excepted them from state intervention under the right to privacy.

Do you have any other examples besides abortion?

9 minutes ago, TEW said:

So, baby about to come out of the womb, mom says kill it, doctor says OK, you think that should be legal?

No Medical board would approve of that procedure.  Doctors aren't unregulated bodies without oversight.  If they perform unapproved procedures they can lose their license and be subject to criminal charges. When it comes to medical decision making I think the decisions sound be left to medical professionals and families, not politicians projecting their morals and religion onto others. 

3 minutes ago, Procus said:

Agree and disagree with this statement.  By and large this is a correct statement.  However, there has to be limitations.  Not all doctors are ethical.  We could circle back to the Kevorkian and euthanasia issue that was raging years back as an example.

See above. Although I fully support adult elective euthanasia. Hope it becomes approved. 

2 hours ago, TEW said:

Roe v Wade was a retarded ruling made by retarded judges that retarded people retardedly believe is a right.

I dont think they were retarded necessarily, I think they knew what they were doing.  When you pile all of everyone's rights into the "due process" clause, you weaken the blunt restrictions in other parts of the bill of rights.

2 minutes ago, Procus said:

Do you have any other examples besides abortion?

 

I'd have to do some research, but off the top of my head, I can't recall many medical procedures that governments attempt to insert themselves into the decision-making process. More often than not, a court would probably decline to take up the case.

13 minutes ago, Procus said:

You do realize there was a movie made about this guy, don't you?

https://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/local/gosnell-murder-deliberations-stretch-into-10th-day/2143888/

So your example is one guy who got convicted of murder?

23 hours ago, NOTW said:

Are there laws regarding other medical practices apart from abortion?  If so, why?  Should all laws regarding anything medical be eliminated because patients and doctors can figure it out on their own?  How about laws about corporations and employees, can't employees and employers figure things out on their own?  You could go down the line.

Here's my reasoning.  What would happen between doctors and patients in the absence of government would be that they would each have to reach a voluntary agreement about treatment and payment.  Only if the agreement were violated would the government get involved, because the government is there to enforce contracts.

The regulatory problem lies in the fact that certain agreements and relationships become fraught with all kinds of intricate ethical dilemmas.  For example, was the patient mentally competent when they agreed to have their heart worked on?  If not, did the doctor know the patient was not mentally competent?  In any case, in a potentially years or decades long relationship between the patient and doctor, did they each document everything that they said between each other such that you could prove someone lied or cheated the other?

These sorts of dispute weigh very heavily on the justice system because they require a lot of research and due to the difficulties mentioned, its hard to reach a just verdict with real certainty sometimes.

In light of all of this, returning to the original question, the government needs to "regulate" and standardize the agreements and laws surrounding them to the extent necessary to maintain order.  But that doesn't mean anything goes.  You can't just say "aha, no more abortions" or "aha any abortions go."  Or whatever the case may be.